Victory in Arkansas: The Trial, Decision, and Aftermath

Creation Evolution Journal

Title:

Victory in Arkansas: The Trial, Decision, and Aftermath

Author(s):

Frederick Edwords

Volume:

3

Number:

1

Quarter:

Winter

Page(s):

33–45

Year:

1982

December 7, 1981, the fortieth anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, will
be remembered by veterans of a different conflict as the first day of the
Arkansas court case dubbed "Scopes II." Arkansas had earlier in the year passed
a two-model creation-evolution bill that demanded equal time for "creation
science" every time evolution was taught. The American Civil Liberties Union
filed suit in federal court charging that the law was unconstitutional and
therefore should be struck down. After six months of preparation, which included
the ACLU's unsuccessful efforts to subpoena a major portion of the files of the
Institute for Creation Research, the two sides in the case met in the Little
Rock courtroom before U.S. District Judge William Overton.

The Trial

It was clear from the beginning that the case would be a major battle of immense
interest to the public. In the courtroom itself were nine trial lawyers, seven
television crews, and an audience of two hundred reporters and spectators. A man
in a gorilla suit, carrying a sign bearing a question mark, strolled through the
court building. Evening newspapers around the country reported each day's events
the day they happened. Even newspapers in foreign countries, including those as
far away as Australia, ran full daily reports.

According to the ACLU challenge, the creation law (Act 590) constituted an
establishment of religion—which is prohibited by the First Amendment of the
Constitution—violated the academic freedom of teachers and students, and was
impermissibly vague in its wording. The ACLU's strategy was to prove that the
law resulted in unconstitutional establishment of religion by referring to the
case of Lemon vs. Kurtzman, in which the Establishment Clause test was clearly
formulated, and by demonstrating how Act 590 failed to meet the requirements of
a constitutional law in this regard. The requirements are as follows: "First,
the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or
primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion . . .
finally, the

- page 34 -

statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion."
Failure to meet any of these criteria would render the law unconstitutional.

The opening arguments of the ACLU were presented by attorney Robert Cearley. He
argued that the creationism law was an "unprecedented attempt by the
legislature
to use its power and authority to define what science is and to force religion
into the schools in the guise of science." Arkansas Attorney-General Steve
Clark, speaking in defense of the law, argued that the statute only "broadens
the teaching of origins from a one-model to a two-model approach." He further
stated that it was a "mere coincidence" that the law's definition of "creation
science" resembled certain religious beliefs.

Since Judge Overton decided to allow both sides to put all testimony they wished
on the court record before he decided what to rule out, the Arkansas case
(McLean vs. Arkansas) immediately moved ahead of the historic Scopes and
Epperson trials which had evaded the direct battle over evidence for creation
and evolution.

The first witnesses for the plaintiffs challenging the law were several Bible
scholars who testified that some of the language of Act 590 came directly from
the book of Genesis, including the word kinds, a creationist term for animal
groups that is found mainly in the King James translation. Michael Ruse, a
professor of philosophy at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, argued
that creationists abandon the scientific approach when they invoke miracles to
patch up difficulties in their theory. He characterized creationist methods as
being "rather sleazy."

Dorothy Nelkin of Cornell University and George Marsden of Calvin College in
Grand Rapids, Michigan, testified on the history of the fundamentalist and
creationist movements in the United States. Nelkin said that she had discovered,
during research for her book on the subject, that fundamentalists equate
evolution with "communism, sexual promiscuity, the decline of the family, and
streaking." Marsden quoted creationist Henry Morris as saying that evolution "is
really the foundation of the very rebellion of Satan himself." Attorneys for the
state objected that this data was irrelevant because the law under question did
not involve the teaching of religion. However, Judge Overton overruled them,
declaring that creationist authors "can't wear two hats. I don't think the
writers can call it religion for one purpose and science for another."

Geneticist Francisco Ayala, who has been an editor of journals concerning
genetics and who has reviewed papers for many others, noted in his testimony
that he had never heard of a scientific paper on creationism being submitted to
any scientific journal. This indicated that creationists were bypassing the
scientific community and were instead using political means to establish their
"science" in the schools. Ayala noted that something similar had happened a
number of years ago in the Soviet Union when doctrinaire proponents of
Lamarckian evolution demanded equal time with Darwinism. Because they used

- page 35 -

political means, the Lamarckian advocates managed to finally push Darwinism out,
and Soviet biology suffered a thirty-year setback as a result of state attachment to this pseudoscientific position.

Ayala also presented some of the genetic evidence for evolution. He note that,
when geneticists first began to compare genes between humans and apes, the first
gene tested showed no difference at all. Comparisons of the second and third
genes tested showed no differences either. When the fourth test showed no
evidence, the joke began circulating that evolution was false and the only
difference between humans and apes was cultural.

G. Brent Dalrymple, of the U.S. Geological Survey, testified that the
creationist claim for an earth being no older than twenty thousand years ranks
wit the "flat earth hypothesis and the hypothesis that the sun goes around the
earth.'

Stephen Jay Gould read off numerous misquotations, half quotations, and
misrepresentations of his own work from the writings of creationist Duane Gish
and others. Interestingly enough, Gish was on the scene to witness this expose.
Gould further noted that the creationist's arguments for a worldwide flood were
shown to be in error as far back as 1831, before Darwin wrote his famous book on
evolution.

Dennis Glasgow, the supervisor of science teaching for the Little Rock schools,
was the next to testify. He said that, in order to implement Act 590, he would
have to uproot the entire school curriculum from kindergarten to senior high. He
further argued that the Act, as he understood it, wouldn't allow teachers to
voice a professional judgment that creationism was unscientific and the students
would be watching the teacher to see if he or she broke the law in the
presentation of the material. This would degrade the teacher and cause students to
lose respect.

Marianne Wilson, who is in charge of the science curriculum for the largest
school district in Arkansas, told the story of her efforts to produce a
creation-science curriculum guide. She found all of the standard creationist
material unacceptable because they were permeated with religious references and
scientific errors. Ms. Wilson further stated that she was unable to locate the
needed scientific materials upon which to base her curriculum guide.

The ACLU rested its case on December 11, and the defense presented its witnesses.

The first defense witness was Professor Norman Geisler of Dallas Theological
Seminary. He argued persuasively that the concept of God was not necessarily
religious; it only became religious when it involved commitment. He noted that
Aristotle had argued for a "first cause" and an "unmoved mover," which Aristotle
held to be scientific concepts. Thus, Geisler concluded, mere belief that there is
a God "has no religious significance" and therefore could be taught as part of a
secular course of study. This was the most crucial testimony for the state's
defense.

- page 36 -

But under effective cross-examination from ACLU attorney Anthony Siano, Geisler
revealed that he believed the Bible to be inerrant, Satan to be existent, the
occult to be real, exorcism to be genuine, and UFOs to be among us. Siano asked
his last question, "How are UFOs connected to your religion?" Geisler replied,
"I think they are a satanic manifestation in the world for the purpose of
deception." For a few seconds the court was silent in astonishment. Then Judge
Overton adjourned the session.

Other defense witnesses testified during the following days. Margaret Helder,
vice-president of the Creation Research Society and a botanist from Canada,
argued that available research didn't support the evolution of plants. But,
under cross-examination by Gary Crawford, she admitted that nearly all
biologists would disagree with her and that most of her evidence was negative
evidence against evolution rather than data supporting creation. She revealed
that she believed that there was no scientific evidence supportive of creation.

Dr. Wayne Friar of King's College in New York called Act 590 a "progressive law"
at the "cutting edge" of new science and education in America. "If Darwin were
alive today, he'd be a creationist," Friar declared.

High school chemistry teacher Jimmy Townley told the court that he wanted to
teach a few creationist facts in his classroom, such as the calculation that
random combinations of chemicals cannot make the molecules of life. The judge
asked him why he couldn't teach that calculation in class now without the
creationism law. Townley seemed confused at the idea that opposing information
could be part of the study of evolution. He maintained that any evidence that
cast doubt on evolution must be evidence for God and creation. Judge Overton
pressed him to think of science as data. After much back and forth, Townley let
the cat out of the bag, "I want to teach . . . creation."

Former college chemistry professor Donald Chittick was asked in cross-examination
whether or not he would be able to accept any scientific data that contradicted
his belief in the literal truth of the Bible. Chittick pondered the question for
a full minute before saying softly, "I cannot give an answer...."

Harold Coffin and Ariel Roth, from the Seventh-day Adventist Geoscience Research
Institute, the most well-known creationists to testify, presented arguments
against evolution. They referred to such things as the apparent rapid
fossilization of extinct forms (which they felt would imply a sudden catastrophe,
such as a worldwide flood, rather than slow evolution), the great depth of coal
beds, the possibility that coral reefs could have grown faster than what
evolutionists say, and the fact that the oldest known bat fossil looks very much
like a modern bat. But in spite of this seemingly science-based testimony, which
the state had hoped would show that creationism was not a religion, Coffin
declared under cross-examination that, if it weren't for the Bible, he would
believe that the earth was millions of years old. Catastrophic events outlined
in the Bible, and nowhere else, coinciding with his scientific studies,
convinced him that a world-wide

- page 37 -

flood had occurred about seven thousand years ago.

The most interesting witness for the defense was probably Dr. N. K.
Wicramasinghe, head of mathematics and astronomy at the University of Wales and
coworker of British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle. Dr. Wicramasinghe testified that
most of the ideas of creation science, such as the young earth, worldwide flood,
separate creation of plant and animal "kinds," and the separate ancestry for
humans and apes were "claptrap." He only agreed that evolution cannot explain
the appearance of life in the first place or the occurrence of new species over
time. He argued that the chances that chemical combinations necessary for life
could occur from the random motion of molecules were the same as the chance that
"a tornado blowing through a junkyard would assemble a Boeing 747."

Wickramasinghe's own scientific hypothesis was that there are microorganisms
living inside comets and that life is rained down on earth from space when a comet
passes by. He said that one such passage brought life to the earth and that
succeeding passages brought the genes that allowed new species to develop. As
one example of his evidence, he cited an outbreak of influenza at Eton school it
England. When asked if he had "any unequivocal evidence that there is DNA or
organisms in space," he answered in the negative. "But you believe that school
children caught a cold from a comet?" Wickramasinghe laughed and said, "That is
so."

Wickramasinghe also testified that he believed insects might be more intelligent than humans but "they're not letting on that they're smarter, because
things are going so well for them."

With such startling testimony and energetic cross-examination, the trial could
easily have become a circus. But Judge Overton maintained order in his courtroom,
and both sides carefully argued from the law.

The creation had allegedly taken seven days, but its trial took nine.

Judge Overton dispensed with closing arguments from the two sides or December
17, the last day of the trial, and retired with three hundred pages of notes to
study in order to arrive at a decision and write an opinion. The written opinion
did not emerge until January 5, 1982.

The Decision

In an unusually strongly worded opinion, Judge Overton overturned the Arkansas
creationism law and entered an injunction "permanently prohibiting enforcement
of Act 590." He declared that the Act failed to meet any one of the three requirements of the Establishment Clause test formulated in
Lemon vs. Kurtzman. In
order to show why the Act did not have a secular legislative purpose (the first
of the three requirements), Overton detailed the history of the passing of the
law which can be summarized as follows.

- page 38 -

The Arkansas law was a "model" bill drafted and promoted nationwide by Paul
Ellwanger, a respiratory therapist from South Carolina. Around 1977, Ellwanger
had collected several proposed pieces of creationist legislation with the idea
of preparing a model state law. "One of the proposals he collected was prepared
by Wendell Bird, who is now a staff attorney for ICR." In explaining his model
bill in a letter to Pastor Robert E. Hays, Ellwanger made it clear that he did
not believe that creationism was a science.

While neither evolution nor creation can qualify as a scientific theory, and
since it is virtually impossible at this point to educate the whole world that
evolution is not a true scientific theory, we have freely used these terms—the
evolution theory and the theory of scientific creationism—in the bill's text.

Overton said that Ellwanger's other correspondence on the subject showed "an
awareness that Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal
this fact." For example, in a letter to Senator Joseph Carlucci of Florida,
Ellwanger wrote:

It would be very wise, if not actually essential, that all of us who are engaged
in this legislative effort be careful not to present our position and our work
in
a religious framework. For example, in written communications that might somehow
be shared with those other persons whom we may be trying to convince, it would be well to exclude our own personal testimony or witness for
Christ....

In a letter to State Senator Bill Keith of Louisiana, Ellwanger stated, "I view
this whole battle as one between God and anti-God forces, though I know there
are a large number of evolutionists who believe in God." And, in a letter to Tom
Bethell, he revealed his ultimate purpose to be "killing evolution instead of
playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade
already."

The Reverend W. A. Blount, chairman of the Greater Little Rock Evangelical
Fellowship in Little Rock, Arkansas, was one of those who received a copy of
Ellwanger's model bill. Blout later caused the Evangelical Fellowship to adopt a
resolution to seek introduction of the bill in the Arkansas legislature. The
proposed bill was then transmitted to Carl A. Hunt, a business associate of
State Senator James L. Hoisted, with the request that Hunt prevail upon Hoisted
to introduce it.

Hunt contacted Hoisted, and Hoisted later introduced the bill in the Arkansas
Senate, but "did not consult the State Department of Education, scientists,
science educators, or the Arkansas attorney general." No Senate committee held a
hearing on the bill, and it was passed after only a few minutes of discussion on
the Senate floor. "In the House of Representatives, the bill was referred to the
Education Committee, which conducted a perfunctory fifteen-minute hearing.

- page 39 -

No scientist testified at the hearing, nor was any representative from the State
Department of Education called to testify."

Interestingly, the legislative "findings of fact" in the model bill were adopted
as written, even though "no meaningful fact-finding process was employed by the
General Assembly." Ellwanger, Blount, and Hoisted were motivated solely by
"religious beliefs and the desire to see the biblical version of creation taught
in the public schools." Senator Holsted had testified in the case that the bill
did indeed favor the religious position of fundamentalist biblical literalists.

Judge Overton added in his opinion that "the state failed to produce any
evidence [during the trial] which would warrant an inference or conclusion that
at any point in the process anyone considered the legitimate educational value
of the Act. It was simply and purely an effort to introduce the biblical version
of creation into the public school curricula."

That being established, Overton went on to show that the Act had the principal
or primary effect of advancing religion. He did this by showing the clear
religious nature of the Act's definition of creation science.

Overton said that this definition "has as its unmentioned reference the first
eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis. Among the many creation epics in human
history, the account of sudden creation from nothing—or creatio ex nihilo—and
the subsequent destruction of the world by flood is unique to Genesis." Overton
further referred to testimony that showed how this effort to cast Genesis in
nonreligious terms was discomforting to "some of the Act's theologically
sophisticated supporters," who could see that the concept of a creator "distinct
from the God of love and mercy is closely similar to the Marcion and Gnostic
heresies, among the deadliest to threaten the early Christian church."

The notion of God itself was declared by Overton to be religious. "The argument
advanced by defendants' witness, Dr. Norman Geisler, that teaching the existence
of God is not religious unless the teaching seeks a commitment, is contrary to
common understanding and contradicts settled case law." He cited Stone vs.
Graham and Abbington School District vs. Schempp in support of this.

The whole approach to teaching creation and evolution under Act 590 "is
identical to the two-model approach espoused by the Institute for Creation
Research and is taken almost verbatim from ICR writings. It is an extension of
the fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation
of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution." Overton added
that the two-model approach "is simply a contrived dualism" having no scientific
basis or "legitimate educational purpose."

Had Overton stopped there, he would not have shown that the primary effect of
Act 590 was the advancement of religion. He would only have established that,
while promoting science, that was the Act's secondary effect. But Overton did
not stop there; he went on to show that "creation science has no scientific

- page 40 -

merit or educational value as science." This point made it clear that "since
creation science is not science, the conclusion is inescapable that the only
real effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion."

Overton showed that creationism was not science by first listing the essential
characteristics of science: (1) it is guided by natural law; (2) it has to be
explanatory by reference to natural law; (3) it is testable against the
empirical world; (4) its conclusions are tentative, that is, are not necessarily
the final word; and (5) it is falsifiable. He then argued that creation science
failed to meet the characteristics because it required a supernatural
intervention which is not guided by natural law and which "is not explanatory by
reference to natural law, is not testable, and is not falsifiable." In support
of this he pointed out that creationist methods "do not take data, weigh it
against the opposing scientific data," and then reach conclusions. Instead,
creationists "take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to
find scientific support for it."

Judge Overton's most devastating critique of creation science was probably the
following comment:

The proof in support of creation science consisted almost entirely of efforts to
discredit the theory of evolution through a rehash of data and theories
which have been before the scientific community for decades. The arguments
asserted by creationists are not based upon new scientific evidence or laboratory
data which has been ignored by the scientific community.

What remained was for Judge Overton to show that Act 590 would foster "an
excessive government entanglement with religion." This he did by noting how
school officials would constantly have to monitor materials and teaching
activities to avoid religious references. "How is the teacher to respond to
questions about a creation suddenly and out of nothing?" he asked. "How will a
teacher explain the occurrence of a worldwide flood? . . . The answer is obvious
because the only source of this information is ultimately contained in the Book
of Genesis." He further noted that having the state screen texts for
impermissible religious references "will require state officials to make
delicate religious judgments." These activities would constitute excessive
government entanglement with religion.

These were the main points in Judge Overton's decision. However, the document
should be read in its entirety for the many details it has to offer. Copies can
be secured for only $6.50 each (mailed first class) by writing to: ACLU of
Arkansas, P.O. Box 2832, Little Rock, AR 72203. The New York Times published
excerpts from the decision on January 6, and Education Week ran the whole text
in its January 12 issue (Vol. 1, No. 16). The American Association for the
Advancement of Science publication, Science, will run the text in a future
issue, and the National Association of Biology Teachers publication, American
Biology Teacher, plans to run the text in its March issue.

- page 41 -

The Aftermath

It is clear that creationists knew in advance that they were going to lose. A
day before the trial ended, Duane Gish of ICR had spoken to reporters and said
that he would not recommend that other states adopt similar creationism laws.
Throughout the trial Arkansas Attorney General Steve Clark was under attack from
his own side for the way he was handling the defense. Television evangelist Pat
Robertson reportedly declared on a broadcast of his "700 Club" show that Clark
was "crooked" and was trying to lose the creation trial on purpose. As a result
of this statement, Clark consulted his personal attorney to decide whether or
not to sue Robertson. In another attack on Clark, the Creation Science Legal
Defense Fund issued a nine-page denunciation of him, which said that he was
unprepared to defend Act 590.

Even before the trial got underway, creationists were making plans in the event
of a loss. The law's sponsor, Senator James Hoisted, had said, "But if we lose,
it won't matter that much. If the law is unconstitutional, it'll be because of
something in the language that's wrong. So we'll just change the wording and try
again with another bill. . . . We've got a lot of time. Eventually we'll get one
that's constitutional."

Perhaps Hoisted was speaking with a knowledge of Paul Ellwanger's new revised
version of the model bill. Ellwanger, who was probably impressed by the
arguments in the ACLU's suit, had revised his original creation law so that it
could now get around them and had begun circulating it in state legislatures
across the country. "The new draft bill is very tight indeed," Ellwanger said.

Since this "revised edition" is now slated for consideration by at least twelve
states, the changes should be examined in detail.

The first change is the title. It no longer speaks of "balanced treatment" but
is instead called the "Unbiased Presentation of Creation-Science and
Evolution-Science Bill." Ellwanger thinks that he has his opposition cornered
with this gambit. "Liberals have objected to bias in education," he says, "now
let's see them support the removal of bias."

In the statement of the bill's purpose, some new words are added and some old
words are changed. The bill now has the additional purpose of making "public
schools neutral" toward student beliefs. This implies that they are not neutral
at present. Along this same line, the former purpose of preventing establishment
of religion is now changed to a purpose of ending establishment of religion.
Supposedly then, evolution is a religion established in the public schools.

But the most outstanding change is the removal or modification of any phrase
that might make creationism look biblical. Thus, whereas the former version
defined , , creation science as involving creation of the universe and life from
nothing, the new version drops "from nothing" and replaces it with "suddenly."
Reference to the worldwide flood is dropped so that creation science now only

- page 42 -

offers "rapid catastrophic processes" as the explanation for the earth's
geology. Finally, the line about a "relatively recent inception of the earth and
living kinds" now reads: "Consideration of several chronometric processes that
could reliably indicate the ages of the earth and of life, including both those
processes that indicate a multibillion year age and those processes that
indicate a relatively more recent inception." This is a reiteration of the
common creationist debate argument that creationism is "open" to either the old
earth or young earth options, while evolution is "limited" to only the old earth
option. Such an approach makes it look as though creationists merely want
science teachers to add scientific data that is often "hidden" from students.

A whole new section is added that explains what "unbiased presentation" amounts
to. One part of this explanation speaks of giving the two models "an equal
number of pages (adding together portions thereof) to the nearest 10 percent of
the total pages in assigned textbook materials, but only to the extent such
materials are available." This sort of thing "should get around the specific
vagueness in the ACLU suit," Ellwanger says.

Another new section requires the use of existing funds to implement the law.
Schools and school districts are only to use "currently authorized and
future authorized special or other textbook acquisition funds" to purchase the
needed textbooks. This also applies to library books and teacher-training
expenses. Ellwanger hopes by this addition to get around the political arguments
of his opponents who frequently point out how much creationism will cost.
Creationist books would be purchased simply by spending less money on standard
books.

Since creationists are often accused of trying to, ultimately, get creationism
taught alone, the "legislative findings of fact" in the model bill now try to
show the opposite. For example, when it is claimed that teaching evolution
exclusively "violates the constitutional principle of academic freedom," it is
added, "just as presentation of only creation science would in the same way
violate academic freedom." This sort of wording occurs again and again,
hammering home the notion that this bill is very fair and even-handed.

Whether or not this wording will hide the real intent from any discerning judge
is doubtful, but it will require more research on the part of the bill's
opponents to dig up the facts as to what creationists are really after.

Ellwanger's strategy in getting this bill passed appeared to be that of getting
it into state legislatures before the trial ended—or at least before the
decision was issued and widely reported. He was partially successful in
Mississippi, where the state senate voted forty-eight to four in favor of the
bill. The vote came within hours of the announcement of the Arkansas decision.
The bill was then sent to the Mississippi House.

Bills had also been filed in the Senate and House of Florida before the Arkansas
decision. However, in the case the decision caused a delay in the scheduling of
these bills, which may be fatal to their passage.

- page 43 -

Meanwhile, in Louisiana where Ellwanger's earlier version was passed in 1981,
the case is already in the courts. The ACLU filed its lawsuit on December 3,
1981. A trial date has not yet been set. Louisiana's state education
superintendent has asked a federal court to declare the law invalid, in light of
the Arkansas decision. Creationists, however, will attempt to block such a move,
because creationist lawyers Wendell Bird and John Whitehead have been deputized
by the Louisiana state attorney general to assist him in defending the law. This
will be their big chance to present the case the way they feel it should have
been presented in Arkansas. Bird said that he had nothing against Arkansas
Attorney General Clark but stated, "It does bother me that a very significant
case was litigated in so haphazard a manner." Richard Bliss, speaking for ICR,
noted that the Arkansas decision "will be a blow for us. . . . We are
discouraged, but not defeated." He looks forward to the Louisiana case. His only
worry is, "If we don't win that one, I don't know what to say. We will have no
excuse at all."

However, another worry looms on the horizon. Clark is considering legal action
against Bird for allegedly discouraging witnesses from testifying in the
Arkansas trial. Bird had helped Clark round up witnesses before the trial, but
he backed out when Clark wouldn't let him be a counsel of record—that is, a part
of the Arkansas defense team. One attorney for Arkansas claims that Bird "wanted
a share of the limelight." Bird apparently had later discouraged Dean Kenyon, a
biologist from San Francisco State University, from testifying, because he
thought Kenyon's reputation would be harmed. Kenyon abruptly left Little Rock
the night before he was to testify and has refused to comment.

An attempt is being made to see if Bird violated any Arkansas law. If not, a
complaint may still be filed with the California Bar Association, which could
lead to Bird's disbarment.

The creation-evolution conflict clearly has not ended; new court battles are to
be fought. Although Clark has stated that there is no basis for an appeal to the
Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, or any hope of overthrowing
Judge Overton's decision directly, he says that the Louisiana case will have a
better chance in the courts if there isn't the confusion of an appeal in
Arkansas.

Meanwhile, many creationists have vowed to "take the offensive." Duane Gish,
seeming to change his position a bit after learning of the decision, told a
reporter, "If anything, creation scientists' efforts will be intensified." He
called Overton's opinion "a very serious blow to academic and religious
freedom." After the Mississippi State Senate passed their creationism bill,
Senator Cecil Mills of Clara, Mississippi, declared, "If we're going to have a
nation that says, 'In God We Trust,' let's go all the way or not at all."

So, even the loss of court cases doesn't seem to daunt the creationist
movement. In fact, even if all variations of the model creation bill were ruled
unconstitutional, the ongoing grass-roots efforts of creationists would probably
continue. An indicator of this is the current problem now facing local
California school districts

- page 44 -

as a result of the actions of a new creationist organization, the
Creation Creed Committee.

The Creation Creed Committee is a California arm of the nationwide lobbying
group, Christian Voice, the organization that targeted liberals for defeat in
the past national election. The goal of the Committee is to stop what
creationists think are local violations of the judge's decision in the
California Segraves trial that took place in 1981. (In that case, the judge
ruled that evolution could not be taught dogmatically.) Their plan of action has
five parts.

First, the running of advertisements on Christian radio and television stations
across the state, explaining the judge's decision and asking parents and others
to alert the Committee to teachers and books that they suspect may be violating
that decision by teaching evolution as fact instead of theory. Second, the
enlisting of thousands of church goers and ministers to become "monitors" of
their local schools. Their job would consist of "reminding authorities that the
California Education Code holds each local board responsible for implementing
policy decisions of the state board and that failure to do so may result. in the
withholding of county and state funds and the loss of teaching credentials for
individual offenders."

The third part consists of the preparation of education kits and a film for
those who will be monitoring the schools "so parents of children can more
intelligently evaluate what children are being taught." Fourth, parents are to
be encouraged to file suit against any local school board "which fails to bring
its texts and teachers into compliance with the state codes." And fifth,
warnings will be issued to local school districts and the state about
questionable textbooks and teachers believed to be teaching evolution as fact.

Working with the Committee is the Creation-Science Research Center, which had
figured prominently in the California lawsuit. Kelly Segraves, director of the
Center, has stated that, "if the state ignores its own policy, we will sue them
in federal court, charging constitutional violations as well as violations of
the Civil Rights Act." He added, "We are not so much concerned with what
teachers are teaching, but rather what lessons children are drawing from the
dogmatic instruction of evolution."

Aside from the fact that such action by the Committee and CSRC amounts to a
witch hunt, a further problem is that Segraves is misinterpreting the judge's
decision and declaring that it means creationism must be given equal treatment
in the classroom.

But even this sort of action is not the final creationist strategy. The action
of last resort is civil disobedience. Francis A. Schaeffer, a leading
fundamentalist intellectual, has just come out with a new book, A Christian
Manifesto, which advocates the resort to force if the government persists in
disobeying what he terms the "laws of God." Writing just before the Arkansas
case went to trial, Schaeffer says:

- page 45 -

The ACLU is acting as the arm of the humanist consensus to force its view on the
majority of the Arkansas state officials.

If there was ever a clearer example of the lower "magistrates" being treated
with tyranny, it would be hard to find. And this would be a time, if the courts
do rule tyrannically [that is, rule against the creationism law], for the state
government to protest and refuse to submit.

Throughout the book, Schaeffer argues that, if legal protests don't work civil
disobedience and active demonstration should be used. He reminds his readers
that they have no obligation to the state if it becomes "tyrannical" toward
Christianity.

Such thinking by creationists could prolong the conflict long after all the
legal battles are won. This is why there is no longer any question that the
creation evolution controversy will be with us for a long time. The victory in
Arkansas is, at best, only a turning point in a long war.

About the Author(s):

Fred Edwords is editor of Creation/Evolution and administrator of the American Humanist Association.